washington.edu · Domains · Slashdot Mirror

Re:look at who's speaking... by Anonymous Coward · 2007-11-18 06:00 · Score: 0 · on Open Source Math

A (really free) version is posted at
http://sage.math.washington.edu/home/wdj/research/index.html

not just know how to: actually do so by Trepidity · 2007-11-08 01:24 · Score: 1 · on Bill to Require Open Access to Scientific Papers

In the world of computer science, statistics, and related areas, many of us have put our volunteer effort where our ideology is and actually do run top journals in the field, completely for free. Some generous assistance is provided by sponsoring institutions in most cases, which isn't hard to get if you just ask, as many institutions are keen to get their name associated with a journal.

Exhibit A
Exhibit B
Exhibit C
etc.

In fact, you can just take a look at this directory and scan for the entries that say "Publication fee: no"---hundreds of them.

Re:Not so easy by Hobbex · 2007-11-07 21:13 · Score: 2, Informative · on Bill to Require Open Access to Scientific Papers

Slashdotters are all convinced that they know how to run a publication for absolutely nothing. Save your breath. They simply don't want to understand that regularly producing a quality journal has costs, time, and effort associated with it. Here is a completely free journal that is among the most reputable in its field. I guess it doesn't exist.

Elsevier made a profit of 850 million USD off academic publishing last year, a more than 25% profit margin.

Re:"Same Basic Things," eh? by mattack2 · 2007-11-05 14:31 · Score: 1 · on Deconstructing the PC Revolution

We're not using pine, we're using alpine
http://www.washington.edu/alpine/

Re:How about telling us what it's called? by langelgjm · 2007-11-04 17:54 · Score: 1 · on Recreating Cities Using Online Photos

Noah Snavely (undergrad at UW)

Just for the record, he's actually a fifth-year Ph.D. candidate, according to his personal page. Though I'm sure he's flattered.

Re:Nope, not photosynth... by supersat · 2007-11-04 10:54 · Score: 1 · on Recreating Cities Using Online Photos

Actually, it's based in part on Photosynth. Photosynth is the commercial version of Photo Tourism, which was a joint project between UW CSE and Microsoft Research. From what I understand, this new technology uses the camera pose (location, orientation, etc.) estimator from Photo Tourism and combines it with some multiview stereo algorithms (PDF) to generate a 3D model.

Re:Nope, not photosynth... by supersat · 2007-11-04 10:54 · Score: 1 · on Recreating Cities Using Online Photos

Actually, it's based in part on Photosynth. Photosynth is the commercial version of Photo Tourism, which was a joint project between UW CSE and Microsoft Research. From what I understand, this new technology uses the camera pose (location, orientation, etc.) estimator from Photo Tourism and combines it with some multiview stereo algorithms (PDF) to generate a 3D model.

Lawrence Lessig's talk today by sufijazz · 2007-11-03 07:13 · Score: 1 · on Google As The Next Microsoft?

http://www.ischool.washington.edu/events/calendar/984 Lawrence Lessig is going to give a lecture tonight at the Univ. of Washington. The title is Is Google (2008) Microsoft (1998)?

Re:Free standards by tritoneaddict · 2007-11-03 07:04 · Score: 3, Informative · on Google As The Next Microsoft?

Lawrence Lessig JUST did a http://www.grad.washington.edu/lectures/schedule.htmtalk on this at University of Washington last night. It was officially titled "Is Google(2008) Microsoft(1998)?" Because he's a smart guy the answer is a bit more complicated than yes or no.

But he did point out a few significant similarities. Fundamentally, both companies are/were trying to create a platform that other developers would use to create good stuff for users. That's been covered before and most of us are familiar with that strategy. The key is that these platforms only work when developers that use it TRUST that they won't get screwed by the platform operator at some later time. Lessig feels that this loss of trust was a far worse consequence to MS than any DOJ settlement/penalty was for the anti-trust fight of the late '90s.

Heck, it's safe to say that trust is the very reason we keep watching Google like hawks. It's the reason MS gets bashed and it's the reason FOSS is embraced. There's flat out NO WAY the rug can be pulled out from under you if you develop over an open source platform.

In light of that, Lessig pointed out a rather scary http://www.google.com/apis/maps/terms.htmlfact:

8.2 Termination. Google may change, suspend or discontinue all or any aspect of the Service, including their availability, at any time, and may suspend or terminate Your use of the Service at any time. This includes, without limitation, the right to set, at Google's own discretion and at any time, a maximum number of map images you may access through the service without Google's prior written consent.

In addition, either party may terminate the Terms of Use at any time, for any reason, or for no reason including, but not limited to, if You engage in any action that reflects poorly on Google or otherwise disparages or devalues the Google Brand Features or Google's reputation or goodwill. If You desire to terminate the Terms of Use, You must remove the Service from Your Site.

8.3 Rejection of Application. Google shall have the right, in its sole discretion, to reject any request to use the Service at any time and for any reason, and such rejection shall render null and void the Terms of Use between You and Google. Google shall not be liable to You for damages of any sort resulting from its decision to reject such a request.

Now, can you imagine your reaction if MS revoked your license because you bashed them in an email sent from a Windows box?

Re:Supply and Demand. by Intron · 2007-10-26 08:24 · Score: 1 · on The Science Education Myth

The US contribution to Super-K came from DOE. Universities seldom throw "gigantic piles of money" at anything not named for an elderly alumnus and covered in ivy, in my experience.

From the agreement: "The final division of expenses shall be decided by the Executive Committee following negotiations with the funding agencies."

Re:Likely result by blueskies · 2007-10-26 01:38 · Score: 1 · on '55 Science Paper Retracted to Thwart Creationists

See the definition of Fractal Wrongness

The state of being wrong at every conceivable scale of resolution. That is, from a distance, a fractally wrong person's worldview is incorrect; and furthermore, if you zoom in on any small part of that person's worldview, that part is just as wrong as the whole worldview. Debating with a person who is fractally wrong leads to infinite regress, as every refutation you make of that person's opinions will lead to a rejoinder, full of half-truths, leaps of logic, and outright lies, that requires just as much refutation to debunk as the first one. It is as impossible to convince a fractally wrong person of anything as it is to walk around the edge of the Mandelbrot set in finite time. If you ever get embroiled in a discussion with a fractally wrong person on the Internet--in mailing lists, newsgroups, or website forums--your best bet is to say your piece once and ignore any replies, thus saving yourself time.